Quantifying Expected Ecological Response to Natural Resource Legislation: a Case Study of Riparian Buffers, Aquatic Habitat, and Trout Populations

Regulations governing the management of streamside vegetation (riparian buffers) lie at a nexus between environmental, social, and land development interests, and can yield especially contentious debates among stakeholders. In 2001, the State Legislature of Georgia, USA, took up this debate; the Legislature reduced the minimum width of mandatory-forested riparian buffers along designated trout streams from ~30 m (100 ft) to ~15 m (50 ft), and commissioned this study to assess the expected response of existing trout populations. Because our research was designed to provide rigorous and accessible data for informing this management debate, this research may serve as a general template for other studies designed to inform regulatory and management decisions. We established and quantified relationships among riparian forests, aquatic habitat (stream temperature and riffle embeddedness), and trout reproductive success (biomass of young trout). We used these relationships to determine the expected impacts of the buffer width reduction on aquatic habitat and trout reproductive success at the stream segment and stream network scales, and assessed associated uncertainty. When compared with stream segments having 30-m wide buffers, our analysis indicated that individual stream segments with 15-m wide buffers have: 1) higher peak temperatures (average peak stream temperatures during the warmest week of the year increase by ~2.0 ± 0.3°C, depending on summertime climate conditions); and 2) more fine sediments (fines in riffle habitats increase by approximately 25% of the observed inter-study-site range). The data show that trout populations will respond markedly to these habitat changes. Linear regression models and an associated Monte Carlo uncertainty assessment document an expected 87% reduction in young trout biomass, with a 95% confidence interval ranging from a 66% reduction to a 97% reduction. A landscape assessment showed that 63% of Georgia's 2nd- to 5th-order trout stream segments could maintain stream temperatures likely (>50% probability) to support young trout in streams bordered by 30-m wide forested riparian buffers. Less than 9% of those streams (only those at the highest elevations) would maintain such temperatures with 15-m wide riparian buffers. As young trout are indicative of trout reproductive success, our results portend substantial reductions or elimination of trout populations in northern Georgia streams where vegetated riparian buffer widths are reduced to 15 m.

[1]  P. Davies,et al.  Relationships between riparian buffer widths and the effects of logging on stream habitat, invertebrate community composition and fish abundance , 1994 .

[2]  Stan Boutin,et al.  Quantitative review of riparian buffer width guidelines from Canada and the United States. , 2004, Journal of environmental management.

[3]  J. Meyer,et al.  Multiple Trophic Levels of a Forest Stream Linked to Terrestrial Litter Inputs , 1997 .

[4]  E. O. Salo,et al.  Streamside Management: Forestry and Fishery Interactions , 1987 .

[5]  A. N. Strahler DYNAMIC BASIS OF GEOMORPHOLOGY , 1952 .

[6]  Paul V. Bolstad,et al.  Effects of Riparian Forest Removal on Fish Assemblages in Southern Appalachian Streams , 1999 .

[7]  D. T. Crisp,et al.  Trout and salmon : ecology, conservation and rehabilitation , 2000 .

[8]  J. Richardson,et al.  Responses of periphyton and insects to experimental manipulation of riparian buffer width along forest streams , 2003 .

[9]  Thomas F. Waters,et al.  Sediment in streams: Sources, biological effects, and control , 1995 .

[10]  R. Naiman,et al.  Riparian Ecology and Management in the Pacific Coastal Rain Forest , 2000 .

[11]  David N. Wear,et al.  Land-Use Changes in Southern Appalachian Landscapes: Spatial Analysis and Forecast Evaluation , 1998, Ecosystems.

[12]  Angela H. Arthington,et al.  Importance of the riparian zone to the conservation and management of freshwater fish: a review , 2003 .

[13]  David R. Barton,et al.  Dimensions of Riparian Buffer Strips Required to Maintain Trout Habitat in Southern Ontario Streams , 1985 .

[14]  R. Naiman,et al.  The Ecology of Interfaces: Riparian Zones , 1997 .

[15]  Judy A. Horwatich,et al.  INFLUENCES OF WATERSHED, RIPARIAN‐CORRIDOR, AND REACH‐SCALE CHARACTERISTICS ON AQUATIC BIOTA IN AGRICULTURAL WATERSHEDS 1 , 2001 .

[16]  J. David Allan,et al.  Landscape influences on stream biotic integrity assessed at multiple spatial scales , 1996, Landscape Ecology.

[17]  Michael K. Young,et al.  Salmonid-habitat relationships in the western United States: a review and indexed bibliography. , 1990 .

[18]  W. B. Scott,et al.  Freshwater fishes of Canada , 1974 .

[19]  John Lyons,et al.  Impacts of Urban Land Cover on Trout Streams in Wisconsin and Minnesota , 2003 .

[20]  G. Helfman,et al.  MULTISCALE INFLUENCES ON PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL STREAM CONDITIONS ACROSS BLUE RIDGE LANDSCAPES 1 , 2002 .

[21]  Paul V. Bolstad,et al.  Land Use Legacies and the Future of Southern Appalachia , 2006 .

[22]  Joseph R. Tomelleri,et al.  Trout and Salmon of North America , 2002 .

[23]  F. Swanson,et al.  An Ecosystem Perspective of Riparian ZonesFocus on links between land and water , 1991 .

[24]  D. W. Coble,et al.  Influence of Sand in Redds on Survival and Emergence of Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) , 1976 .

[25]  S. Goetz,et al.  IKONOS imagery for resource management: Tree cover, impervious surfaces, and riparian buffer analyses in the mid-Atlantic region , 2003 .

[26]  M. Freeman,et al.  Reach-scale effects of riparian forest cover on urban stream ecosystems , 2005 .

[27]  G. Host,et al.  Examining Land Use Influences on Stream Habitats and Macroinvertebrates , 1994 .

[28]  F. James Rohlf,et al.  Biometry: The Principles and Practice of Statistics in Biological Research , 1969 .

[29]  S. Kolmes,et al.  Maximum Temperature Limits for Chinook, Coho, and Chum Salmon, and Steelhead Trout in the Pacific Northwest , 2005 .

[30]  M. Power,et al.  HOW FINE SEDIMENT IN RIVERBEDS IMPAIRS GROWTH AND SURVIVAL OF JUVENILE SALMONIDS , 2004 .

[31]  R. Curry,et al.  Population-level responses to sediment during early life inbrook trout , 2004, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.